>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:59:27 -0500, "Allen S. Rout" <asr AT ufl DOT edu> 
>> said:

> I'm trying to work out exactly how IBM thinks virtual volume
> reclamation is supposed to proceed, and also how we think it does in
> fact proceed. ;)

So, I'm back to make recitation of my errors and oversights in this
investigation.



I'll quote the conclusion, for starters: virtual volumes in copy pools
may never be marked access=offsite, but they are always reclaimed as
though they were access=offsite.



My initial confusion was grounded in my expectation that, since the
virtual copy vols could not be -marked- offsite, that they would be
reclaimed as onsite vols.  The first stgpool I went to reclaim behaved
in this manner: I started to reclaim a few volumes, and the process
mounted a remote server vol, copied from Atlanta to Gainesville, and
then back.  So far, so good.

But when I started doing this on other servers, I got the
primary-volume-mount version.  Aggravation; why was it different?

Sadly for my documentation-reading purposes, I saw "Reclamation of
copy storage pools...", and "Reclamations of volumes..." in the
extremely useful info center.  What I missed was that the latter read
in full "Reclation of volumes with the device type of SERVER". D'oh
again.

Once I was nudged into that, my remaining problem was determining why
the original reclamation had proceeded from the remote volume.
Investigation established that I had some access=UNAVAILABLE primary
volumes; the reclamation was being accomplished by reference to the
available volumes, which were coincidentally the copies I had
anticipated.






- Allen S. Rout